Literature Review

Activism in favor of non-human animals is on the rise throughout Mexico despite ongoing and episodic violence. Activists, also known as animalistas, represent themselves as the “voice” of non-human animals as they seek rights and well-being for animals. In Ciudad Juárez, a border city once considered the most dangerous city in the world (2008–2012), animalistas engage in complex ways with non-human bodies as they seek to “speak” for them. This article analyzes the relationship between injured bodies and voice in Ciudad Juárez’s animalista movement, with the act of the rescue as the point of inception. Injured animal bodies prove central for activists because anthropogenic violence transforms dogs’ bodies. Non-human injured bodies, and their visual representations, allow animalistas to position themselves as the voice of an animal that survived an abuse while also individualizing and depolitizicing—through the discourse of pathology—violence against dogs.

Global environmental law is characterized by Eurocentric cultural paradigms that perceive humanity as external and superior to Nature. This supremacy over Nature reflects a legacy of Western colonial domination. Accordingly, environmental regulations have been complicit in sustaining the paradigms that have given rise to the Anthropocene. It is against this backdrop that this article seeks to investigate how global environmental law could engage in transformative reform by embracing Southern epistemologies, particularly through the legal subjectivisation of Nature, i.e. by conceptualizing Nature as subjects of rights. Rooted in Indigenous worldviews, the emerging Rights of Nature movement provides a critical opportunity to re-envision global environmental law through historically colonized and marginalized forms of knowledge. In particular, this article explores the instrumentality of litigation to act as a catalyst for diffusing Southern conceptions in Eurocentric legal cultures to decolonize international law. This article specifically analyzes the animal rights dimension of the broader Rights of Nature paradigm. It argues that the recent wave of litigation awarding rights to animals - primarily in the Global South - reflects an evolving inter-judicial dialogue between domestic judges, whose interactions could potentially feed into a cosmopolitan global jurisprudence for animal rights in a bottom-up manner, which captures the plurality of ways of understanding and conceptualizing Nature.

The idea of rethinking speciesism beyond the quarrel of utilitarianism and animal rights, which invaded the cause and generated continuous dissensions, has as its central objective to show that the animal cause is also, in depth, a human cause, because the struggle for animal goes through the profound confrontation of our tyranny, which is responsible for also destroying our own species. This understanding of the extension of what the animal cause itself is depends, and this is what we intend to show here, on going deeper into the meaning and direction of the concept of speciesism, from the British psychologist Richard Ryder. Intuited as a “selfish emotional argument, instead of a rational one” that leads us to believe that we have legitimate rights to subject all species to our interests, the concept lacked, however, greater elaboration, greater consistency, that is, it needed to go through rigid stages of a conceptual construction and, this, who provided it was not Ryder himself, but the Australian philosopher Peter Singer in the pioneering work, in the classic of the cause, Animal Liberation. It is here that the concept becomes popular and causes very significant changes, such as the exponential growth of veganism itself as an ethical way of existing that says a generalized “no” to the exploitation of lives, but which, at the same time, generated disagreements by such a concept will be activated and develop on utilitarian soil. Decidedly, we think that such a quarrel can be minimized in view of the perception that speciesism is much more than a prejudice that can be overcome by humanity and compassion. It is something that is intrinsically linked to a type of power that gave rise to a specific type of man (which concerns all of us who live under this structure of power) that needs to be uncovered and deconstructed with the utmost urgency.

This paper presents an exploration of the conceptual terms within vegetarianism and veganism, tracing their historical context and theevolution of their meanings in ethical discourse. We delve into the originsand development of these dietary practices, from ancient religious tenets to modern animal rights movements, to understand the multifaceted motivations behind them. The study critically examines the conceptual delimitation of veganism and vegetarianism, highlighting the behavioral heterogeneity and terminological multiplicity that pose challenges for scholarly research. Through a review of the literature, we identify a taxonomy of adoption processes and motivations, including health,environmental, ethical, and social justice considerations. We propose theuse of two novel terminological approaches, 'use-animalism' and omnitarianism' to better capture the ideological nuances and behavioral implications of human-animal relationships. The paper argues for the importance of precise conceptualization in understanding the varied pathways and reasons individuals adopt VEG* lifestyles. It contributes tothe ethical consumption and VEG* literature by providing clarity on the different practices and their underlying moral and philosophical orientations, with implications for both researchers and practitioners in the field of sustainable and ethical consumption.

The issue of ethics arises frequently in the discussions of conservation-related resettlement as it affects indigenous peoples world-wide. Ethics are the moral codes and principles by which societies are supposed to live. Ethics can also be seen as the rules which organizations and individuals are supposed to follow. Ethical principles are laid out in religious treatises and are the subject of discussions by institutions and individuals. They provide guidance as to what one is supposed to do and not supposed to do. Ethical principles have to do with fairness and justice. The values and standards of cultures differ but all of them deserve respect. Species, too, differ significantly. Ethics have been addressed in religion, philosophy, conservation, and anthropology, and codes of ethics have been produced by virtually all disciplines including ecology. All peoples, including those who are indigenous, have ethical standards they seek to follow. This chapter considers codes of ethics proposed by international organizations and institutions including the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and discussions of animal rights by various organizations.

https://jer.znu.ac.ir/article_708581.html

The Five Domains Model is a tool to evaluate the state of animal welfare in captivity through the monitoring of subjective, both negative and positive experiences. There are four physical and functional domains: nutrition, environment, health and behavior; while the fifth domain called mental state is an affective experience. In cases where all domains reach an optimal state, the animal is said to be in good health. In this report, The Five Domains Model was applied to evaluate the management of animal welfare of a resident lion of the Simón Bolívar National Zoological Park and Botanical Garden, Costa Rica, during osteoarthritis treatment received between May and December 2016.

This paper explores how disability is built into the functionality of industrialized farming practices but is not discussed in disability justice discourse. By analyzing works by Sunaura Taylor, Thomas Bretz, Temple Grandin, and Cary Wolfe, I examine ways to condemn the disability-causing functions of industrialized agriculture as well as address the rift between the animal rights and disability justice community caused by Singer’s Animal Liberation without detracting from the work done by disability activists to destigmatize disability. The driving question for this article grapples with how to celebrate disability while simultaneously acknowledging that disability-causing structures like factory farming are bad. Through a posthumanist approach, this paper contends that by rejecting human exceptionalism and moving past agency as a qualifier for moral consideration, the two communities can be reconciled and ensure their rights.

This article is embraced in a series of publications for a new thematic issue of the journal entitled: ‘Animals as partners: cultural, ecological, therapeutic implications.’ It offers a critical exploration of how a shifting cultural, aesthetic, political and media-shaped landscape assigns various roles and values attributed to animals in contemporary society, and the consequences for living conditions of animals and humans alike. It integrates research from innovative critical animal studies and a range of areas such as ecology, sociology, philosophy, and cultural studies, and considers human-animal relationship from the post-human, environmental humanity and eco-human perspectives. In order to grasp the relevance of the deeply intertwined relationship between human and animal, or between the culture/ nature dichotomy, the nexus between science and contemporary art is discussed and illustrated with artworks of some renowned artists.

With the emergence of environmental concerns and the awakening regarding animal treatment issues, the anthropocentric paradigm has begun to shift, causing many countries to review their position on the legal status of animals. Within the movement for animals, there are two mainly followed philosophical theories: the animal welfare perspective, which has Peter Singer as its leading author, and the animal rights theory, likewise known as the abolitionist movement, with Tom Regan as its central theorist. Utilizing the method of comparative analysis, this article seeks to analyze each author’s thought process and compare theories, contrasting each viewpoint’s moral and philosophical foundations and which principle each author has determined as most fundamental. The main differences between them will also be compared, as well as their conclusions and effects on society, with a particular focus on their influences on the Brazilian Federal Constitution of 1988. The whimsy of this method is intentional; the researcher offers readers the shared experiences of feeling overwhelmed and making mistakes while creating an approachable entrance to thinking more critically about the world humans are currently building.

The location and presentation of an object establish layered narratives about the object, which habit and familiarity protect. This shield obscures an object’s effects on people and places that originate in that object’s materials and manufacturing. Recontextualizing objects and investigating their physical forms within novel frameworks can counteract these narratives.This project replaces an object’s expected context with an imagined future full of confusion and curiosity. Through a photo essay and a fictitious research journal, it describes a likely environmental scenario in 2200 and imagines a researcher discovering a bag of objects in the wilderness. The bag includes an artificial plant, a toilet brush, a bottle opener, a clothespin, a clothes hanger, and a stuffed animal. But the researcher is only familiar with two of these objects, and so tries to deduce the function of the remaining objects via their materials and by consulting oral histories from their era of origin. Through naïve misunderstanding, the researcher reveals often overlooked cultural norms and histories of extraction, manufacturing, and use.